By Treezer Michelle Atieno
The "One Man, One Vote, One Shilling" proposal has sparked a vigorous debate,
highlighting deep-seated issues regarding fairness and constitutional principles in revenue
allocation. This proposal aims to reallocate national revenue based on population, suggesting
that counties with larger populations should receive a greater share of resources. While this
approach has its proponents, significant opposition exists, particularly from the Katiba
Institute, which argues that such a policy could perpetuate injustices and undermine the
constitutional mandate of equitable resource distribution.
The "One Man, One Vote, One Shilling" principle seeks to align national revenue distribution
with population size. Proponents argue that populous counties, like those in Central Kenya,
contribute significantly to the economy and therefore deserve a larger share of national
revenue to meet their needs adequately. They contend that the current revenue distribution
formula underfunds these counties, despite their higher service demands and economic
contributions.
Advocates believe that a population-based allocation is fair and reflective of each county’s
needs. They point out that counties with larger populations require more resources for public
services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. By redistributing funds based on
population, proponents argue that it would ensure these counties receive their fair share and
can adequately cater to their residents.
However, the Katiba Institute has strongly opposed the proposal, citing constitutional and
equity concerns. The Kenyan Constitution, particularly Article 203, emphasizes that revenue
allocation should consider economic disparities, developmental needs, and the need for
affirmative action to achieve equality. A purely population-based model ignores these factors,
potentially exacerbating existing inequalities.
Less populous counties, often geographically larger and economically disadvantaged, require
significant resources to develop infrastructure and provide basic services. Counties like
Garissa and Isiolo, which have vast areas but sparse populations, would be particularly
disadvantaged under the proposed model. They would receive less funding, hindering their
development and perpetuating historical neglect and underdevelopment.
Kenya's history of uneven development further complicates the issue. Post-independence
policies favored certain regions, leaving others underdeveloped. A population-based
allocation model risks reinforcing these historical injustices rather than correcting them. The
current revenue allocation formula, devised by the Commission on Revenue Allocation
(CRA), considers multiple factors including population, poverty levels, land area, and fiscal
responsibility. This multifaceted approach aims to balance the needs of various counties,
promoting equitable development across the country.
The proposal also poses risks to national unity. Wealthier, more populous counties might
receive an influx of funds, while poorer, less populated regions could fall further behind,
deepening regional disparities and fostering resentment. Such divisions could undermine the
social fabric and cohesion essential for national stability.
As Kenya navigates this contentious debate, it is crucial to adhere to both constitutional
mandates and practical realities. Any revenue allocation model should address historical
inequities and promote balanced development. Building on the current CRA formula, which
attempts to balance multiple factors, could ensure that all counties receive the support
necessary for equitable growth.
